DOCSLIB.ORG

Ernst Freund, Felix Frankfurter and the American Rechtsstaat: a Transatlantic Shipwreck, 1894-1932

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ernst Freund, Felix Frankfurter and the American Rechtsstaat: a Transatlantic Shipwreck, 1894-1932 Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2009 Ernst Freund, Felix Frankfurter and the American Rechtsstaat: A Transatlantic Shipwreck, 1894-1932 Daniel R. Ernst Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/18 “Ernst Freund, Felix Frankfurter and the American Rechtsstaat: A Transatlantic Shipwreck, 1894-1932.” Studies in American Political Development 23 (October 2009): 171-88. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Banking and Finance Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications October 2009 Ernst Freund, Felix Frankfurter and the American Rechtsstaat: A Transatlantic Shipwreck, 1894-1932 23 Stud. Am. Pol. Dev. 171-88 (2009) Daniel R. Ernst Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/18/ Posted with permission of the author As the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act made its way through Congress in the fall of 2008, one repeatedly voiced complaint was the enormous, judicially unreviewable discretion it vested in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as he acquired up to $700 billion of assets and securities on the government’s behalf. “We’re essentially creating a King Henry here who is going to be able to buy any type of financial instrument he wants from any financial institution anywhere in the world,” complained Congressman John Culberson, a Republican from Texas. His Democratic colleague from Virginia, Robert Scott, objected that Congress “should not give unlimited discretion to buy assets at prices obviously higher than fair value to an administration frequently accused of cronyism and favoritism.”1 Yet when two conservative groups denounced the newly enacted law for violating a constitutional ban on the delegation of legislative power, prominent law professors simply shrugged. The bailout “certainly tests the outer limits of Congressional delegation authority,” Laurence H. Tribe allowed, but the law was hardly unprecedented. Many other vague delegations had survived judicial review.2 Professor Tribe had a great deal of history on his side. From the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 through the New Deal, legislation creating federal agencies usually endowed officials with broad delegations of power to act in the public interest. By 1951 such delegations were so commonplace that the law professor Kenneth C. Davis could compile a long list, including grants of the power to set “just and reasonable rates,” to remove “unreasonable obstructions” to navigation, to end “unfair methods of competition,” and to regulate broadcasters in accordance with “public convenience, interest, or necessity.”3 For American reformers, “modern government” required discretion for administrators; to insist that administrators proceed in a rule- bound fashion was to call for “a laissez-faire role for government.”4 When, in 1944, the Austrian 1 emigre Friedrich A. Hayek warned that only governments bound “by rules fixed and announced beforehand” could deliver their peoples from the “road to serfdom,” even New Dealers who were starting to worry where unbridled discretion might lead could not see how to embrace Hayek’s version of the “Rule of Law” without renouncing the whole of the American reform tradition.5 In fact, Hayek was anticipated by one of the principal early theorists of the American administrative state. Ernst Freund’s great treatise, The Police Power (1904), became the American progressive’s counter to any conservative who invoked an older tradition of “constitutional limitations” on American statebuilding.6 Like the “transatlantic” reformers Daniel T. Rodgers studied in his magisterial Atlantic Crossings (1998), Freund believed that Europe’s city planning, social insurance, rural cooperatives and other attempts “to limit the social costs of aggressive market capitalism” were presumptively appropriate models for the United States.7 He felt the same way about European approaches to implementing those programs. Above all, he expected to see the United States, like other modernizing countries, follow Germany in establishing a Rechtsstaat, that is, a polity in which the legitimate activities of the state and the “the sphere of freedom” of the citizenry were “exactly define[d] and inviolably secure[d].”8 Despite Freund’s best efforts, however, the Rechtsstaat was one European import that never established itself on American shores. The shipwrecking of the Rechtsstaat may be observed in a quarrel between Freund and another leading scholar of administrative law in the United States in the early twentieth century, Felix Frankfurter. The two had a great deal in common. Both had lived in Europe before taking up residence in the United States. Freund was born in the United States to German parents in 1864, educated in Germany, and emigrated in 1884, settling in New York City.9 Frankfurter was 2 born in Austria eighteen years after Freund and emigrated with his family to New York’s lower east side in 1894, the year Freund left the city to join the faculty of the University of Chicago. Both actively participated in the reform movements of the Progressive Era. Jane Addams eulogized Freund as “the finest exponent in all Chicago of the conviction that as our sense of justice widens it must be applied to new areas of human relationships or it will become stifled and corrupt.” Frankfurter labored tirelessly on behalf of the National Consumers League and progressive industrial unions, such Sidney Hillman’s Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Both protested the deportation of suspected radicals in the Palmer Raids of 1919.10 Both rejected the widely held dogma, most authoritatively pronounced by A. V. Dicey, that equated the Rule of Law with the freedom to challenge any administrators’ deprivation of a private right in a proceeding conducted in “the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.”11 Each haled the other as a great scholar of administrative law. Frankfurter dedicated his casebook on the subject to “Ernst Freund, Pioneer in Scholarship.” Freund repaid the compliment in his review of the book by placing Frankfurter “at the forefront of the field of administrative law in this country.”12 For all that, the two disagreed fundamentally about administrative law. Their disagreement took definite shape in the years 1921 and 1932 as the two shared responsibility for the leading foundation-supported research program in their field, the Commonwealth Fund’s Committee on Administrative Law and Practice. As the senior and better published of the two, Freund prepared a comprehensive agenda and expected Frankfurter to recruit lawyers from among the recent graduates of his administrative law seminar to carry it out. Frankfurter had his own ideas, however; ultimately, each man directed his own phase of the program as he saw fit. 3 Freund conducted a “statutory survey” of administration in the federal government, New York, and Germany; Frankfurter oversaw a series of “intensive studies” of individual agencies. The culmination of Freund’s survey was the virtually unreadable Administrative Power over Persons and Property (1928). Although the summa of more than three decades of Freund’s teaching and writing, the book’s influence was negligible, especially on the younger generation of legal academics who dominated the field after World War II. The monographs of Frankfurter’s students cast a much longer shadow. As a work of scholarship, the most impressive was I. L. Sharfman’s massive investigation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, published in the 1930s, but an earlier study of the Federal Trade Commission by Gerard C. Henderson influenced more American lawyers. Decades after its publication in 1924, law students still learned its object lessons about how administration could go wrong and what lawyers could do about it from a lengthy extract in Henry Hart and Albert Sack’s Legal Process.13 No single factor explains why Freund lost and Frankfurter won. Freund’s taxonomic approach to legal scholarship obscured his meaning and limited his readership. Henderson’s vivisection of a faltering federal agency was much more engaging reading. Personal temperament and institutional location also mattered. Freund’s charm could engender great affection in his students, but, as he acknowledged, he lacked Frankfurter’s capacity to inspire and cultivate disciples. He occupied a somewhat marginal place at the University of Chicago’s law school after a curriculum he proposed was rejected in 1904. Frankfurter, in contrast, regularly culled the best students from Harvard’s large LL.B. classes and its smaller pool of graduate law students.14 More important than any of these factors was a difference of opinion on the merits of 4 administrative discretion. Freund hoped to bring the Rechtsstaat to America. Nineteenth-century German liberals had developed the concept to constrain the discretion of revanchist, aristocratic bureaucrats, but Freund found it no less serviceable in an American polity dominated by political machines. For Freund, administrative discretion was an evil, tolerable only until experience under open-ended standards suggested the content of a certain rule. Frankfurter’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Revisionist History of Regulatory Capture WILLIAM J
    This chapter will appear in: Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest . Influence and How to Limit it. Edited by Daniel Carpenter and David Moss. Copyright © 2013 The Tobin Project. Reproduced with the permission of Cambridge University Press. Please note that the final chapter from the Cambridge University Press volume may differ slightly from this text. A Revisionist History of Regulatory Capture WILLIAM J. NOVAK A Revisionist History of Regulatory Capture WILLIAM J. NOVAK PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF LAW The idea of regulatory capture has controlled discussions of economic regulation and regulatory reform for more than two generations. Originating soon after World War II, the so-called “capture thesis” was an early harbinger of the more general critique of the American regulatory state that dominated the closing decades of the 20th century. The political ramifications of that broad critique of government continue to be felt today both in the resilient influence of neoliberal policies like deregulation and privatization as well as in the rise of more virulent and populist forms of anti-statism. Indeed, the capture thesis has so pervaded recent assessments of regulation that it has assumed something of the status of a ground norm – a taken-for-granted term of art and an all-purpose social-scientific explanation – that itself frequently escapes critical scrutiny or serious scholarly interrogation. This essay attempts to challenge this state of affairs by taking a critical look at the emergence of regulatory capture theory from the perspective of history. After introducing a brief account of the diverse intellectual roots of the capture idea, this essay makes three interpretive moves.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Adoption of the Maryland Executive Budget Amendment by Richard E
    A History of the Adoption of the Maryland Executive Budget Amendment By Richard E. Israel March 5, 2004 Annapolis, Maryland (This paper will be posted in the near future on the archivesofmaryland.net website of the Maryland State Archives) 1 I. Introduction In 1904 the General Assembly appropriated $1,000 for a tombstone for and a portrait of Governor Thomas G. Pratt whose three-year term as governor expired in 1848 and who died in 1869. The tombstone that marks the former governor’s grave in St. Anne’s Cemetery on College Creek in Annapolis has this singular inscription: “He saved the credit and upheld the honor of this State.” This remarkable tribute in granite honors executive leadership that was instrumental in averting insolvency when the state was unable to repay the money it had borrowed to invest in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and other works of internal improvement in the 1820s and 1830s. One result of this financial crisis was the adoption of the debt clause of the 1851 Constitution which, then and now, limits the legislature’s power to create debt by requiring that bond bills levy a tax for their redemption. In seeking support for the appropriation to honor the memory of Governor Pratt, the chief sponsor, Delegate Edward Goslin of Caroline County, referred to the former governor’s imperishable work which was the cornerstone of the state’s prosperity at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, eight years after making this speech, Mr. Goslin was serving as a member of the Maryland Senate and was warning that history was about to repeat itself.
    [Show full text]
  • American Political Science Review
    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Drugs Destroying Sport?
    Can C 0 U n t r i e s Fin d Coo per a tiD n Ami d the R u i nos 0 feD n f lie t ? ARE DRUGS IN THI S IS SUE DESTROYING The Gann Years: Colm Connolly '91 Wins Hail to "The Counselor" A Retrospective High-Profile Murder Case Sonja Henning '95 SPORT? Page 8 Letters to the Editor If you want to respond to an article in Duke Law, you can e-mail the editor at [email protected] or write: Mirinda Kossoff Duke Law Magazine Duke University School of Law Box 90389 Durham, NC 27708-0389 , a Interim Dean's Message Features Ethnic Strife: Can Countries Find Cooperation Amid the Ruins of Conflict? .. ..... ... ...... ...... ...... .............. .... ... ... .. ............ 2 The Gann Years: A Retrospective .. ............. ..... ................. .... ..... .. ................ ..... ...... ......... 5 Are Drugs Destroying Sport? .. ..................................... .... .. .............. .. ........ .. ... ....... .... ... 8 Alumni Snapshots Colm Connolly '91 Wins Conviction and Fame in High-Profile Murder Case ................... .................. ... .. ..... ..... ... .... .... ...... ....... ....... ..... 12 Sonja Henning '95: Hail to "The Counselor" on the Basketball Court ........................ .. 14 U.N. Insider Michael Scharf '88 Puts International Experience to Work in Academe ................................... ..................... ... .............................. ....... 15 Faculty Perspectives Q&A: Can You Treat a Financially Troubled Country Like a Bankrupt Company? .. ..... ... 17 The Docket Professor John Weistart: The Man
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy, Police Power, and the Growth of Public Power in the Early Twentieth Century: a Not So Unlikely Coexistence Carol Nackenoff
    Maryland Law Review Volume 75 | Issue 1 Article 11 Privacy, Police Power, and the Growth of Public Power in the Early Twentieth Century: A Not So Unlikely Coexistence Carol Nackenoff Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation 75 MD. L. REV. 312 (2015) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIVACY, POLICE POWER, AND THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC POWER IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY: A NOT SO UNLIKELY COEXISTENCE ∗ CAROL NACKENOFF The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.1 Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.2 Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren published The Right to Privacy in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 because they were concerned that the modern era provided inadequate safeguards for protection of the private realm and the “right to one’s personality.”3 With the emerging recognition of a “man’s spiritual nature,” feelings, and intellect, came the acknowledgement of “the right to enjoy life—the right to be let alone.”4 Brandeis and Warren argued that if thoughts, emotions, and sensations demanded legal protection, that the common law was beautifully capable of © 2015 Carol Nackenoff.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Review of Traditional and New Public Administration and Critique of New Public Management Yorid Ahsan Zia ∗ and M
    A Comparative Review of Traditional and New Public Administration and Critique of New Public Management Yorid Ahsan Zia ∗ and M. Zeb Khan ∗∗ Abstract The problems of collective nature have always received a good deal of attention from politicians, economists, and academicians in an attempt to seek solutions that ensure efficient utilization of resources for prosperity and progress of the present generation without compromising the future generations to meet their needs. Keeping this end in view, many approaches have been advocated at different times ranging from market economy to welfare state to the most recent focus on public-private partnership. Each approach offers some benefits as well as costs. This study is an attempt to look deeply into both traditional approach to public administration and New Public Management (NPM) with special focus on their similarities and differences in addition to critically examining some assertions associated with NPM. The aim is to build on the strengths of both approaches and overcome their weaknesses for serving the rising expectations of citizens properly. Keywords: Public administration; New public management; Efficiency; Effectiveness Introduction Public administration has been in practice since the dawn of human civilization but it is nascent as an academic field. It constitutes the government machinery and is supposed to implement policies formulated in response to public aspirations and needs. The success of governments, therefore, depends to a greater extent on how public administration effectively and efficiently meets the changing demands of the society. The emergence of public administration as a field of scientific inquiry began with the seminal article of Woodrow Wilson titled, “the study of administration”.1 He argued that it is difficult to run modern complex governments without thorough ∗ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • From Progressivism to Paralysis Philip K
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM JANUARY 6, 2021 From Progressivism to Paralysis Philip K. Howard abstract. The Progressive Movement succeeded in replacing laissez-faire with public over- sight of safety and markets. But its vision of neutral administration, in which officials in lab coats mechanically applied law, never reflected the realities and political tradeoffs in most public choices. The crisis of public trust in the 1960s spawned a radical transformation of government operating systems to finally achieve a neutral public administration, without official bias or error. Laws and regulations would not only set public goals but also dictate precisely how to implement them. The constitutional protections of due process were expanded to allow disappointed citizens, employ- ees, and students to challenge official decisions, even managerial choices, and put officials to the proof. The result, afer fify years, is public paralysis. In an effort to avoid bad public choices, the operating system precludes good public choices. It must be rebuilt to honor human agency and reinvigorate democratic choices. introduction In January 2020, University of Washington epidemiologists were hot on the trail of COVID-19.1 Virologist Alex Greninger had begun developing a test soon afer Chinese officials published the viral genome. But he needed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to deploy his test in-house. Greninger spent 100 hours filling out an application for an FDA “emergency use authorization” 1. See Shawn Boburg, Robert O’Harrow Jr., Neena Satija & Amy Goldstein, Inside the Corona- virus Testing Failure: Alarm and Dismay Among the Scientists Who Sought to Help, WASH. POST (Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Ernst Freund and Debs V. United States Harry Kalven Jr
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1973 Professor Ernst Freund and Debs v. United States Harry Kalven Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harry Kalven, Jr., "Professor Ernst Freund and Debs v. United States," 40 University of Chicago Law Review 235 (1973). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 40 NUMBER 2WINTER 1973 Ernst Freund and the First Amendment Tradition Professor Ernst Freund and Debs v. United States Harry Kalven, Jr.t The decision in Debs v. United States1 was handed down by the United States Supreme Court some fifty-four years ago. It is happily no longer good law; it is not likely to become law again. It is with little exception not studied in the law schools, and it is rarely cited or noted in even the more elaborate casebooks or treatises on constitutional law.2 It might seem, therefore, an antiquarian indulgence for a busy law review to devote some pages to it, especially for the primary purpose of reprinting an article from the New Republic, an article which is also fifty-four years old.3 But the opinion in Debs was written by Justice Holmes; and the article in the New Republic is a criticism of the case written by Ernst Freund.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Publications of Political Interest Books and Periodicals
    RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF POLITICAL INTEREST BOOKS AND PERIODICALS BY CLAEENCE A. BERDAHL University of Illinois AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC LAW Books Adams, James T. The founding of New England. Pp. 482. Boston. Atlantic Monthly Press. Bassett, John S., ed. Selections from the Federalist. Pp. 331. N. Y., Scribner's. Charming, Edward. History of the United States. Vol. 5, 1815-1848. N. Y., Macmillan. Comstock, Alzada. State taxation of personal incomes. Pp. 246. Columbia Univ. Studies. Crowell, Benedict and Wilson, R. F. The armies of industry. 2 vols. Yale Univ. Press. Hasse, Adelaide R. Index to United States documents relating to foreign affairs, 1828-1861. Part III. Washington, Carnegie Institution. Hoffman, John H. Taxation of federal, state, and municipal bonds. N. Y. John H. Hoffman. Hotchkiss, Willard E., and Seager, Henry R. History of the shipbuilding labor adjustment board, 1917-1919. (Bull. No. 283, Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Pp. 107. Washington. Howland, Harold. Theodore Roosevelt and his times: a chronicle of the pro- gressive movement. (Chronicles of Am. Series.) Pp. 289. New Haven, Yale Univ. Press. Lambert, Edouard. Le gouvernement des juges et la lutte contre la legislation sociale aux Etats-Unis. Pp. 276. Paris, Giard. Loeb, Isidor, and Shoemaker, Floyd C, eds. Journal Missouri constitutional convention of 1875. 2 vols. Pp. 1-509; 510-954. Columbia, Mo., State Hist. Society of Missouri. Lowry, Edward G. Washington close-ups. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. McCombs, William F. Making Woodrow Wilson president. N. Y., Fairview Pub. Co. Macdonald, William. A new constitution for new America. N. Y., Huebsch. Mayers, Lewis. The federal service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inversion of Rights and Power
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2015 The Inversion of Rights and Power Philip A. Hamburger Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Philip A. Hamburger, The Inversion of Rights and Power, 63 BUFF. L. REV. 731 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1103 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 63 AUGUST 2015 NUMBER 4 The Inversion of Rights and Power PHILIP HAMBURGERt INTRODUCTION No constitutional test is more important than the compelling-government-interest test. It is the foundation of all analysis of constitutional rights. But can a government interest really defeat a constitutional right? The courts repeatedly say that claims of constitutional rights must give way to government interests. The courts even sometimes say that a compelling government interest justifies the infringement of a right-as when the Supreme Court asks "whether some compelling state interest ... justifies the substantial infringement of appellant's First Amendment right."' In support of such doctrine, it often is said that rights are "not absolute." t Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. The author is grateful for comments from Henry Monaghan, Jamal Greene and more generally from the Columbia Faculty Workshop. All quotations in this Article, other than those from the Constitution, are rendered in conventional modern English-that is, they are reproduced with modern spelling and capitalization, and without italicization, and abbreviations are spelled out.
    [Show full text]
  • Frank Goodnow and the Chinese Republic
    Washington International Law Journal Volume 21 Number 3 The Future of Nuclear Power in East Asia 6-1-2012 An Early Tragedy of Comparative Constitutionalism: Frank Goodnow and the Chinese Republic Jedidiah Kroncke Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Jedidiah Kroncke, An Early Tragedy of Comparative Constitutionalism: Frank Goodnow and the Chinese Republic, 21 Pac. Rim L & Pol'y J. 533 (2012). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol21/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington International Law Journal by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EARLY TRAGEDY OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM: FRANK GOODNOW AND THE CHINESE REPUBLIC Jedidiah Kroncke† Abstract: This article recovers a lost episode in the neglected early history of comparative constitutionalism in the United States. In 1913, pioneering comparative lawyer Frank Goodnow went to China to assist the new Chinese Republic in the writing of its first constitution. Goodnow’s mission reflected the growing interest of the United States in China’s legal development in this era, and his constitution-writing project won broad support from the U.S. legal profession. Goodnow’s tenure ultimately generated great controversy when he advised China’s leaders to adopt a constitutional monarchy rather than continue on as a republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2011 Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law Thomas W. Merrill Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas W. Merrill, Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 939 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/140 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 111 JUNE 2011 NO. 5 ARTICLE ARTICLE III, AGENCY ADJUDICATION, AND THE ORIGINS OF THE APPELLATE REVIEW MODEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Thomas W. Merrill* ABSTRACT American administrativelaw is grounded in a conception of the rela- tionship between reviewing courts and agencies modeled on the relationship between appeals courts and trial courts in civil litigation. This appellate review model was not an inevitablefoundation of administrativelaw, but it has had far-reaching consequences, and its origins are poorly understood. This Article details how the appellate review model emerged after 1906 as an improvised response by the U.S. Supreme Court to a political crisis brought on by aggressive judicial review of decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Once the jeny-built model was in place, Congress signaled its approval, and an academic-John Dickinson-wrote a persuasive book ex- tolling its virtues.
    [Show full text]